I think this is an interesting statement as well, but I keep thinking, if art is only an intensely selfish obsession and a personal, internal dialogue, then there would be absolutely no need to ever make what one creates public. One has to ask themselves what is the point of making a work public? Seems to me one would just create things and keep them to themselves if this was 100% true.
Can’t answer reliably or courteously as to Guest’s nosiness–I am sometimes a ‘you’ who’s interested in – let me re-phrase – private experiences other people have–, but Guest wasn’t referring to her or his interest.
She or he was referring to someone who shows other people something — who makes conditions for the possibility of others’ experience..
That’s the crux of Guest’s crux, right?: how can one disclose in a way that that disclosure remains exclusively “self-ish” and “internal” and not at all “a conversation”?
Whether the statement Brooks quotes is knowingly (or fructively) paradoxical or not, it sounds self-contradictory.